Returning to the subject of gun control, I have to wonder, why don’t the eminently reasonable gun control measures that do exist get enforced?
Take Chicago’s Memorial Weekend massacre. Two of the shooters (three, according to some sources) had recently been arrested on gun violations. And almost immediately released. These are violent felons who aren’t supposed to have guns. They were arrested with guns. Why weren’t they prosecuted?
This has been going on for a long time. Chicago police arrest criminals on gun violations according to the existing gun laws. But the prosecutors refuse to charge. It has gotten so bad that police try to go directly to the feds (which normally police don’t enjoy doing) over the heads of prosecutors because at least this way there’s a possibility of taking the criminals off the streets for a while.
As I keep saying, guns aren’t a subject that I’m interested in. But I am interested in lies. The exact same people who bemoan the lack of gun control measures aggressively refuse to enforce gun control measures in places they control. Why is that? Several of the shootings this past weekend in Chicago could have been prevented if the existing gun control measures were enforced. Why ask for more gun control measures if you don’t use the ones already there?
I have to conclude that something else is going on. Let’s ban AR-15s, they say. OK, let’s. And then what? Is that going to be enforced? Why should we assume it will? Why should we assume it won’t be enforced selectively in a way that won’t reduce gun violence? Because if the goal really were to reduce gun violence. . . see everything I have written before. Violent crime has exploded in several big cities since May of 2020. These are cities with strict gun laws. That, once again, don’t get enforced. You unleash violence, defund the police, and then try to disarm law-abiding people while putting violent criminals back in the streets. Would it be rational to assume that this is truly about preventing gun violence? I can’t see how it would.